If Sir Alex profits from the IPO

[Feeky Magee]

From Fergie's perspective, they may well be great owners. A lot of us fans have decided that our relatively low net spend in recent years is down to the Glazers cutting corners. Maybe Fergie's tellling the truth when he says he's always got the financial backing he needs?

As for the bigger picture, the debt is getting smaller, revenues are increasing and the club is valued at three or four times what it was when the Glazers bought it. You can see why Fergie might think they're doing a good job running the company.

The one one only clear-cut sticking point is the increase in prices and the ACS scheme. Fergie might well think the prices are justified and why on earth would any United fan not want to watch our next generation of stars in the Carling Cup?

£530m has flooded out of the club for the privilege of having them as owners. The way they bought the club was, though obviously legal, I think inherently immoral, and put the club in enormous debt whereas previously it had not a penny. They have mortgaged everything the club own against this debt, and have put in place a scheme which makes an opposition takeover very difficult, "even if it benefits the shareholders". Meanwhile, as you say, ticket prices have shot up, fans are forced to buy tickets for games they cannot physically attend, and all the while there's hundreds of millions that need to be repaid by 2017.

One step they were intending to do to reduce that burden they have taken a u-turn on, and now less than half of the proceeds will be going towards that whilst they pocket the other half, possibly to take care of the restructured PIKs that we were assured had nothing to do with United.

We've spent considerably less than all of our rivals despite generating enormously more than them, something which has apparently come on SAF overnight, in contrast to his previous statements about taking market risk. We spend the lowest amount of turnover on wages in the league.

Put simply the Glazers have hamstrung us to an enormous degree, given the money United generate, the potential would be frightening if we weren't up to our neck in debt. How anyone can say the Glazers have been anything but terrible owners is utterly beyond me, their only redeeming facet has been not to interfere with the footballing side of things, which a) I don't think they could do if they wanted, and b) any owner with an IQ in the double figures wouldn't do with SAF.

They have been awful, awful owners, Ferguson has done brilliantly in spite of them, but that doesn't change that, nor his attitude to them.

 

[Deleted 20801]

Andy Green ‏@andersred
Happy to apologise to SAF (as if he cares what I say). Still think valid to ask question.

The guy is a cock jet.

 

[Feeky Magee]

By the way, I'd be interested to hear from people about Ferguson's comment that he'd never put his personal financial gain over the interest of the club and how that stands up to the Coolmore business.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Glad Fergie has chosen to clear this up rather than let it fester.

 

[Feeky Magee]

Andy Green ‏@andersred
Happy to apologise to SAF (as if he cares what I say). Still think valid to ask question.

The guy is a cock jet.

How so? Of course it's valid to ask the question. I think he made a mistake on Sky News to state it so definitively, and in fairness he did backtrack later, before SAF came out. Absolutely no need for insults, the man has done an incredible amount of work for nothing to ensure United fans are more clued up about the financials of the club.

 

[Damien]

TBF to andersred he has backtracked on twitter. Saying that though, can't defend him on his suggestions re: Fergie. Needs to do a public apology on TV just like he made the accusations on them.

He didn't really have much option other than to backtrack. He was pretty quick to stick the knife in and andersred is someone a lot of United fans look to with regards to the keeping up to date with the financial situation for those, like me who don't really know the first thing about these matters.

He was a major driving force in what led to our manager having to try to defend himself and speak up for something he didn't really have to do in the first place and it makes me embarrassed as a United fan that he had to do that even though I, like some others spoke in defence of him.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

£530m has flooded out of the club for the privilege of having them as owners. The way they bought the club was, though obviously legal, I think inherently immoral, and put the club in enormous debt whereas previously it had not a penny. They have mortgaged everything the club own against this debt, and have put in place a scheme which makes an opposition takeover very difficult, "even if it benefits the shareholders". Meanwhile, as you say, ticket prices have shot up, fans are forced to buy tickets for games they cannot physically attend, and all the while there's hundreds of millions that need to be repaid by 2017.

One step they were intending to do to reduce that burden they have taken a u-turn on, and now less than half of the proceeds will be going towards that whilst they pocket the other half, possibly to take care of the restructured PIKs that we were assured had nothing to do with United.

We've spent considerably less than all of our rivals despite generating enormously more than them, something which has apparently come on SAF overnight, in contrast to his previous statements about taking market risk. We spend the lowest amount of turnover on wages in the league.

Put simply the Glazers have hamstrung us to an enormous degree, given the money United generate, the potential would be frightening if we weren't up to our neck in debt. How anyone can say the Glazers have been anything but terrible owners is utterly beyond me, their only redeeming facet has been not to interfere with the footballing side of things, which a) I don't think they could do if they wanted, and b) any owner with an IQ in the double figures wouldn't do with SAF.

They have been awful, awful owners, Ferguson has done brilliantly in spite of them, but that doesn't change that, nor his attitude to them.

Absolutely none of that addresses the scenario outlined in my post.

As I said, from Fergie's perspective everything that I posted could be true and he's a damn sight better positioned to know if it is than you or I.

 

[Deleted 20801]

How so? Of course it's valid to ask the question. I think he made a mistake on Sky News to state it so definitively, and in fairness he did backtrack later, before SAF came out. Absolutely no need for insults, the man has done an incredible amount of work for nothing to ensure United fans are more clued up about the financials of the club.

See Damien's post, summed it up perfectly.

 

[Redfighter]

I hope some people feel utterly shit for some of the things they have said regarding OUR manager. I was undecided on this issue but hoped the case was as Sir Alex has verified. I feel bad for not instantly rubbing it myself.

Great man, great manager and Manchester United through and through.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

By the way, I'd be interested to hear from people about Ferguson's comment that he'd never put his personal financial gain over the interest of the club and how that stands up to the Coolmore business.

M&M would have sold at that price whether Fergie spent his evenings throwing rocks at their windows or cuddled up beside them on their sofa.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

How so? Of course it's valid to ask the question. I think he made a mistake on Sky News to state it so definitively, and in fairness he did backtrack later, before SAF came out. Absolutely no need for insults, the man has done an incredible amount of work for nothing to ensure United fans are more clued up about the financials of the club.

He' seriously harmed his credibility here. The role of any expert is to debunk technical issues and present them to people less expert in a clear and open manner, so they can form their own opinions. After this nonsense, it's impossible to read anything he writes without worrying that's he's twisting the facts to suit his agenda. This is something everyone who reads his blog should bear in mind from now on. It's a shame really. We now have to find someone a bit more objective if we want balanced analysis.

 

[roseguy64]

One step they were intending to do to reduce that burden they have taken a u-turn on, and now less than half of the proceeds will be going towards that whilst they pocket the other half, possibly to take care of the restructured PIKs that we were assured had nothing to do with United.

We've spent considerably less than all of our rivals despite generating enormously more than them, something which has apparently come on SAF overnight, in contrast to his previous statements about taking market risk. We spend the lowest amount of turnover on wages in the league.

Isn't it that they've just added on new shares to the IPO? So the money the original shares get will go to debt and the new shares they've included go to them? They've not done a u-turn at all.

Our major rivals wll be able to spend more than us even if we do generate more than them and were debt-free. I'm assuming you mean Madrid, Barca, Chelsea and City. All of those clubs are funded by means that will enable them to not worry about things we have to. We couldn't compete with that money either way.

 

[Feeky Magee]

Absolutely none of that addresses the scenario outlined in my post.

As I said, from Fergie's perspective everything that I posted could be true and he's a damn sight better positioned to know if it is than you or I.

Yes it did. You talked about spending, I explained how I think spending has clearly been hamstrung. You talked about the state of United as a business and how it could be seen to be doing alright, I explained how I think it isn't. You talked about how the ACS could be seen to be alright, I explained how I think they're not. Just because you've presented possible ways to see things doesn't mean they're plausible. There's no way SAF can think United have done well financially under the Glazers.

See Damien's post, summed it up perfectly.

Except Damien is referring to backtracking after the answer came out, I saw backtracking before that, he made a mistake on Sky News not to clarify it was an if. The man's not infallible, he's an ordinary bloke with a good knowledge of financials. I dare say if you or I were having to do unpaid work on it essentially every day we'd make the odd mistake.

 

[roseguy64]

He didn't really have much option other than to backtrack. He was pretty quick to stick the knife in and andersred is someone a lot of United fans look to with regards to the keeping up to date with the financial situation for those, like me who don't really know the first thing about these matters.

He was a major driving force in what led to our manager having to try to defend himself and speak up for something he didn't really have to do in the first place and it makes me embarrassed as a United fan that he had to do that even though I, like some others spoke in defence of him.

Agree entirely.

 

[Kraftwerker]

By the way, I'd be interested to hear from people about Ferguson's comment that he'd never put his personal financial gain over the interest of the club and how that stands up to the Coolmore business.

Well that's if you view the Coolmore business as motivated by financial gain. If it was a matter of principle, he had every right to pursue it. As I've repeated several times, even if you're a multi-billionaire with no requirement for the money, if you think you're being screwed over, you'll pursue it as a matter of principle.

The other thing to note is that Magnier and McManus, two majority stakeholders in our club acted like total cnuts during that episode. They didn't want Ferguson to be offered a new contract and questioned his performance, his signings, and fought a dirty boardroom war to oust him. Basically they were intimidating him and sabotaging the club in the process.

We'd be better off without the Glazers, but equally, we're better off without those cancerous feckers in the boardroom.

 

[Feeky Magee]

Isn't it that they've just added on new shares to the IPO? So the money the original shares get will go to debt and the new shares they've included go to them? They've not done a u-turn at all.

Our major rivals wll be able to spend more than us even if we do generate more than them and were debt-free. I'm assuming you mean Madrid, Barca, Chelsea and City. All of those clubs are funded by means that will enable them to not worry about things we have to. We couldn't compete with that money either way.

As I understand it, the plan is now to use approx. £75m to pay off the debt whereas before it was approx. £150m.

Your second point is nonsense. Look at the money we generate. We could absolutely compete.

 

[Steven Seagull]

To the anti-gill thread!!

 

[mariachi-19]

Andy Green ‏@andersred
Happy to apologise to SAF (as if he cares what I say). Still think valid to ask question.

The guy is a cock jet.

If I was Fergie i'd sue the arse off him.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yes it did. You talked about spending, I explained how I think spending has clearly been hamstrung. You talked about the state of United as a business and how it could be seen to be doing alright, I explained how I think it isn't. You talked about how the ACS could be seen to be alright, I explained how I think they're not. Just because you've presented possible ways to see things doesn't mean they're plausible. There's no way SAF can think United have done well financially under the Glazers.

Re: Spending, I pointed out that only Fergie knows whether or not we've been hamstrung

Re: The business. That's your opinion. I can certainly see how Fergie might differ on that when you look at the objective measures of how you measure the success of any business.

Re: the ACS. Again, Fergie's opinion almost certainly differs from yours.

 

[Deleted 20801]

No, Damien referred to much more than simply backtracking, as did Pogue. The backtracking is immaterial really, he should have had the sense not to come out with anything, if he didn't have clarrification or actually know what he's talking about, that's the main problem. Well, if we did and we went public over it in order to help other fans understand the situation accurately, I'd understand a backlash if there was one when it turns out that was completely wrong.

 

[Hans Moleman]

He' seriously harmed his credibility here. The role of any expert is to debunk technical issues and present them to people less expert in a clear and open manner, so they can form their own opinions. After this nonsense, it's impossible to read anything he writes without worrying that's he's twisting the facts to suit his agenda. This is something everyone who reads his blog should bear in mind from now on. It's a shame really. We now have to find someone a bit more objective if we want balanced analysis.

He signs off every blog post with LUHG. I think impartiality was never a question.

 

[Kraftwerker]

As I understand it, the plan is now to use approx. £75m to pay off the debt whereas before it was approx. £150m.

Your second point is nonsense. Look at the money we generate. We could absolutely compete.

What's your source on that?

How do you know the initial plan wasn't just to make £75m and pay off the debt?

Then the new plan was to do exactly the same only the Glazers decided to sell an equal amount of their own shares too, for financial gain.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but both scenarios are plausible.

 

[Feeky Magee]

Re: Spending, I pointed out that only Fergie knows whether or not we've been hamstrung

Re: The business. That's your opinion. I can certainly see how Fergie might differ on that when you look at the objective measures of how you measure the success of any business.

Re: the ACS. Again, Fergie's opinion almost certainly differs from yours.

Is it smarter to go with the "only Fergie knows" logic, or to go with actual evidence that we can see? Spending is significantly down, whilst at the same time whereas before there was no money flooding out, now there's hundreds of millions. Given Fergie's quotes on spending in the past, and actual spending, I think it's unlikely he's had on overnight change of heart, so therefore I conclude that spending has been hamstrung. Again, United in the past spent a comparable amount of turnover to other clubs, under the Glazers, that has shot down. To me, this is clearly because the club has to balance between spending and servicing a very large debt.

As for the ACS, I can't for the life of me see how anyone could agree with that from any perspective other than "we get more money from it, therefore it's alright".

 

[Kraftwerker]

Is it smarter to go with the "only Fergie knows" logic, or to go with actual evidence that we can see? Spending is significantly down, whilst at the same time whereas before there was no money flooding out, now there's hundreds of millions. Given Fergie's quotes on spending in the past, and actual spending, I think it's unlikely he's had on overnight change of heart, so therefore I conclude that spending has been hamstrung. Again, United in the past spent a comparable amount of turnover to other clubs, under the Glazers, that has shot down. To me, this is clearly because the club has to balance between spending and servicing a very large debt.

As for the ACS, I can't for the life of me see how anyone could agree with that from any perspective other than "we get more money from it, therefore it's alright".

Come on. I know you have an agenda, but you weaken arguments with falsehoods.

 

[Commadus]

What's your source on that?

How do you know the initial plan wasn't just to make £75m and pay off the debt?

Then the new plan was to do exactly the same only the Glazers decided to sell an equal amount of their own shares too, for financial gain.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but both scenarios are plausible.

Wouldnt they have had to make it clear what the IPO proceeds would have to be used for?

Did they ammedn the issue stating only half will be used to reduce debt?

 

[Feeky Magee]

What's your source on that?

How do you know the initial plan wasn't just to make £75m and pay off the debt?

Then the new plan was to do exactly the same only the Glazers decided to sell an equal amount of their own shares too, for financial gain.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but both scenarios are plausible.

It was in the draft prospectus: "We intend the use all of the proceeds from the IPO to reduce our indebtedness". The touted money to be raised was a lot more than £75m.

Well that's if you view the Coolmore business as motivated by financial gain. If it was a matter of principle, he had every right to pursue it. As I've repeated several times, even if you're a multi-billionaire with no requirement for the money, if you think you're being screwed over, you'll pursue it as a matter of principle.

The other thing to note is that Magnier and McManus, two majority stakeholders in our club acted like total cnuts during that episode. They didn't want Ferguson to be offered a new contract and questioned his performance, his signings, and fought a dirty boardroom war to oust him. Basically they were intimidating him and sabotaging the club in the process.

We'd be better off without the Glazers, but equally, we're better off without those cancerous feckers in the boardroom.

Principle? He was quite clearly in the wrong on the issue, and found to be so.

 

[roseguy64]

As I understand it, the plan is now to use approx. £75m to pay off the debt whereas before it was approx. £150m.

Your second point is nonsense. Look at the money we generate. We could absolutely compete.

I've seen different. Before they were just issuing class A shares and were to use the proceeds from that on debt. Now they're also issuing class B shares and pocketing that money. Only deviation seems to be additional shareas being issued.

We could compete but only up to a point. I just really couldn't see us regularly splash out 20m+ on players and singing players for upwards of 40m like those clubs do. The only thing we really do regularly lose targets on is wages but don't think losing the debt would affect that as it's a percentage of turnover limit that was in place before the Glazers IIRC.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Is it smarter to go with the "only Fergie knows" logic, or to go with actual evidence that we can see? Spending is significantly down, whilst at the same time whereas before there was no money flooding out, now there's hundreds of millions. Given Fergie's quotes on spending in the past, and actual spending, I think it's unlikely he's had on overnight change of heart, so therefore I conclude that spending has been hamstrung. Again, United in the past spent a comparable amount of turnover to other clubs, under the Glazers, that has shot down. To me, this is clearly because the club has to balance between spending and servicing a very large debt.

As for the ACS, I can't for the life of me see how anyone could agree with that from any perspective other than "we get more money from it, therefore it's alright".

That leaves us with a scenario where Fergie has regularly and repeatedly lied through his teeth about how he finds working under the Glazers. Which would be in contrast to his behaviour under previous owners when he was never afraid to lock horns with them if he felt they were hindering his quest for trophies.

 

[MUFC07]

You can't help but think what will become of us when he calls it a day. There are few like him nowadays.

 

[TheReligion]

Who on earth made this into a poll?

 

[Feeky Magee]

Come on. I know you have an agenda, but you weaken arguments with falsehoods.

Right, there was dividends and more tax going out but not on the scale of the interest, i.e. flooding.

 

[Interval]

Anyways the ring leader in this whole mess needs banning from Red cafe IMO.

Interval Level you cnut. You are out of here you fergie bashing SOB!

But but...

I hope this puts this to rest though. And I personally hope he gets some shares as bonus in the future. He's entitled to them

 

[kps88]

Wait did anyone ever think Andersred was a shining bastion of objectivity and impartiality?

I appreciate what he does, but the man's made his own position very well known and he's only going to provide arguments and facts that support this position. I don't think of him as an impartial observer. He's team anti Glazer. It's up to the other side to counter what he says.

 

[Feeky Magee]

I've seen different. Before they were just issuing class A shares and were to use the proceeds from that on debt. Now they're also issuing class B shares and pocketing that money. Only deviation seems to be additional shareas being issued.

We could compete but only up to a point. I just really couldn't see us regularly splash out 20m+ on players and singing players for upwards of 40m like those clubs do. The only thing we really do regularly lose targets on is wages but don't think losing the debt would affect that as it's a percentage of turnover limit that was in place before the Glazers IIRC.

Wasn't there class A shares and B shares in the original proposal. I definitely remember the issue of comparable voting rights between the two being brought up from the original.

Yes but things have changed, United are financially a different machine now to the early-2000s, mostly due, before anyone says it, to things outside the control of the Glazers, such as TV rights etc. All I'll say is to look up our turnover comparable to the rest of the league and tell me we couldn't compete with an owner who didn't bleed the club, even with City and Chelsea's investment.

 

[Skywarden]

Some of you lot need to hang your heads in shame. Critical thinking requires a good foundation - this shitstorm is all but that.

Unfounded speculation made into false conclusions. A man devoting 20 years pushing this club to high heavens deserves better than that.

 

[devilish]

That leaves us with a scenario where Fergie has regularly and repeatedly lied through his teeth about how he finds working under the Glazers. Which would be in contrast to his behaviour under previous owners when he was never afraid to lock horns with them if he felt they were hindering his quest for trophies.

I don't think that SAF had ever criticized any owners. He criticized Edwards after he sold his stake + he had an argument with M & M who were major shareholders (with not enough power to kick his butt out).

 

[Kraftwerker]

It was in the draft prospectus: "We intend the use all of the proceeds from the IPO to reduce our indebtedness". The touted money to be raised was a lot more than £75m.

The only figure mentioned in the draft prospectus is an offering of $100m. That's actually less than £75m.

Now of course there might be all sorts of figures touted (afterall this was the draft, not the final version), but if you're going off the draft figures, $100m was the only figure mentioned.

Principle? He was quite clearly in the wrong on the issue, and found to be so.

Really? And here I was thinking it was settled before it got to court, with both parties agreeing to a compromise.

Funny how someone clearly in the wrong wasn't brought to court and shown to be wrong.

Funny also how Magnier and McManus, who were clearly in the right and would've easily won in court, used dirty boardroom tactics to try to intimidate Fergie into dropping the case.

Anyone would think they weren't entirely confident of winning in court and had to resort to dirty tricks and intimidation to stop it getting that far.

 

[Interval]

I've seen different. Before they were just issuing class A shares and were to use the proceeds from that on debt. Now they're also issuing class B shares and pocketing that money. Only deviation seems to be additional shareas being issued.
.

No.

They're issuing 5%, ie 8.3 mn Class A shares to the public sold by Man Utd PLC which will get the proceeds. At the same time, Glazers are selling a furthermore 5% out of the remianing 95% they own to the public, the proceeds of which United won't get.

Class B shares, completely retained by Glazers have 10 votes a share representing 67% of the votes that can be cast.

 

[Feeky Magee]

The only figure mentioned in the draft prospectus is an offering of $100m. That's actually less than £75m.

Now of course there might be all sorts of figures touted (afterall this was the draft, not the final version), but if you're going off the draft figures, $100m was the only figure mentioned.



Really? And here I was thinking it was settled before it got to court, with both parties agreeing to a compromise.

Funny how someone clearly in the wrong wasn't brought to court and shown to be wrong.

Funny also how Magnier and McManus, who were clearly in the right and would've easily won in court, used dirty boardroom tactics to try to intimidate Fergie into dropping the case.

Anyone would think they weren't entirely confident of winning in court and had to resort to dirty tricks and intimidation to stop it getting that far.

I'm aware of that, but that was never going to be the final amount. The statement was the intent to use all of the proceeds towards the debt, I think it's pretty clear.

As for the "found to be wrong", I was referring to the revelation that the stake in the horse was gifted to him and he hadn't been paying upkeep costs. I think it's pretty clear looking at the case as a whole he was in the wrong.

 

[charleysurf]

Wait did anyone ever think Andersred was a shining bastion of objectivity and impartiality?

I appreciate what he does, but the man's made his own position very well known and he's only going to provide arguments and facts that support this position. I don't think of him as an impartial observer. He's team anti Glazer. It's up to the other side to counter what he says.

Being anti-Glazer is one thing. Setting up strawman attacks on Alex Ferguson just so you can increase your media profile is quite another.